Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Choosing a Selection scheme

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    248

    Default Choosing a Selection scheme

    The Veterans committee are proposing to change the selection procedures for Veteran teams. However before this is done we should consider how the decision should be made. Currently a number of the Veterans committee regularly compete in Veteran teams. These members should not be involved in making the actual decision. There is no suggestion of questioning their integrity, but there is a clear conflict of interest that cannot be left unchallenged. The committee may well feel that the others on the committee lack the experience to make the decision, in which case other experienced fencers should be co opted to draw up the selection scheme.
    Leaving the decision to a vote of members, as has been done in the past, is equally fraught with problems. It is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. The discretionary place and the automatic selection of a world champion, both in my mind sensible policies, (I would say that wouldn’t I!), were voted down by the membership. However the vast majority of members know they are very unlikely to become world champion or be eligible for a discretionary place, so many of those that were interested in competing voted them down out of self interest.
    The decision needs to me made by experienced dis-interested parties after canvassing members opinions.

  2. #2
    Senior Member max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Well put Graham. The main reason I didn't vote on the proposed scheme is that I benefited from the existing scheme and felt that any input I had would be subjective.
    A problem shared is one more person to laugh at you.

  3. #3
    ***** Legend hokers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Woking/Guildford
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    As a non-Veteran I feel I'm impartial enough to decide this.
    I think the team selection should be in height order, tallest first. No argument there, just grow a bit taller.

    Or you could use the result of the Nationals, that might be less contraversial.
    “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

  4. #4
    Senior Member marg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    South west
    Posts
    258

    Default

    The selectors are all fencers who usually get selected. Yes, they could have vested interests in picking the best selection scheme to suit themselves but it would be hard to find a group of experienced fencers who are also not the ones looking for selection.
    A veteran’s circuit for selection I think would be a disaster but if I was a male epeeist I may feel differently as there are quite a few male epeeists. It’s a complete non starter for women’s sabre so please forget it!

    It is fool hardy to disallow a discretionary place in team events. It wouldn’t be if we were not chasing medals, but we are. Please reconsider.

    I also believe strongly that a World Champion should have the right to defend their title. If this was seniors then by winning the Worlds you would get a shed load of international points and virtually guaranteed that you would get to defend your title. We don’t have that security and it should be a given. Come on, give a World Champ some just reward, winning doesn’t happen very often!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marg View Post
    The selectors are all fencers who usually get selected. Yes, they could have vested interests in picking the best selection scheme to suit themselves but it would be hard to find a group of experienced fencers who are also not the ones looking for selection.
    !
    I disagree, I would think that there are a number of experienced fencers that could stand in to help with determining a replacement selection scheme. The Philbins spring to mind but there are also a number of others.

  6. #6
    Senior Member marg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    South west
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    I disagree, I would think that there are a number of experienced fencers that could stand in to help with determining a replacement selection scheme. The Philbins spring to mind but there are also a number of others.
    The current selection committee may well feel uncomfortable with being in a position of sorting a new selection system and wanting to be selected. If experienced selectors could be found and were willing to be involved then i think this is the obvious solution.

  7. #7
    Initiate
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    @ the keyboard - Scotland
    Posts
    63

    Default Heartbeat

    Quote Originally Posted by hokers View Post
    As a non-Veteran I feel I'm impartial enough to decide this.
    I think the team selection should be in height order, tallest first. No argument there, just grow a bit taller.

    Or you could use the result of the Nationals, that might be less contraversial.
    If you can find one - pick the highest - only joking - number of wrinkles? [tempted to use the icon that waves its finger in disgust] - cut in half and count the number of rings - nope - okay - not joined the veterans but hope this post won't upset anybody if I decide to apply - yikes!

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    248

    Default Suvey-Foregone conclusion

    The problem with the survey is that it essentially only compared Duncan’s scheme with the status quo. Most vets agree that a change is required, but no attempt was made to consider alternatives. Hence it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that it would come up with the results that it did.
    The suggestion of doing away with the National championships and replacing them in effect with another age group competition has received considerable criticism. The reason that it had to go under Duncan’s scheme was that it would not fit with the proposed points scheme, which uses only age group competitions. The excuse for not using any Open competitions for making selection was given to me as ‘sabreurs (male?) find that the youngsters in opens are too fast and they get beaten too easily’. If this is really the case, rather than the view of a few sabreurs, then I suggest we have a separate scheme for the (male) sabreurs from the others. For the others, a mix of Opens, age group, and Nationals could be used in different proportions depending on the age groups. For instance I would expect that the over 70 age groups would not have to fence in an Open to for fill their number of required competitions, but the 40-50 category would have to fence in several Opens.
    The Opens have the advantage of having an existing scheme to measure their strength and would provide better competition to enable the vets to improve. Many of our competitors in ET16 were clearly outclassed by countries who take the training of veteran fencers seriously. The suggestion that we could raise the standard by making the veterans compete in small age group competitions is just plain wrong.

  9. #9
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    Many of our competitors in ET16 were clearly outclassed by countries who take the training of veteran fencers seriously. The suggestion that we could raise the standard by making the veterans compete in small age group competitions is just plain wrong.
    I found the survey was structured in a way that I had to decide if I were for or against change. I didn't think the proposals would be significantly more successful than the existing scheme in the aim of improving GBR vets results and so I decided for no change and answered the questions from that position.

    I doubt that the training of vets fencers is a significant factor in the success of other countries. I think they just have more top class fencers to choose from. With that format of team competition you only need 2 great fencers in the team and you'll get your 5 victories. For the more successful countries those fencers are probably ex-international senior fencers who were capable of great results at the senior level. Or were team mates of those fencers.

    Can we boast of ex-senior international fencers with a track record of achievement at the highest level? We can boast of some great fencers for sure but do they have the track record of their great fencers? No criticism of our fencers intended. It just seems to me that we can't be too surprised that a country such as France or Italy that shows dominance at a cadet, jnr and senior level continues to do so once they reach their 40's.

    And don't all our top Vets do opens anyway? I think so, so why engineer a replacement scheme to make them do something they already willingly do.

    In an ideal world I do like the idea of factoring in senior ranking but that too has it's weaknesses, in ME at least. We have the Elite three times a year where you can pick up loads of points with some top third placings. However it's located south of London which immediately puts the non London based fencers at a disadvantage.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisHeaps View Post
    I doubt that the training of vets fencers is a significant factor in the success of other countries. I think they just have more top class fencers to choose from. With that format of team competition you only need 2 great fencers in the team and you'll get your 5 victories. For the more successful countries those fencers are probably ex-international senior fencers who were capable of great results at the senior level. Or were team mates of those fencers.
    I could not disagree more. I only reconised 2 ex top class fencers at ET16, Fischer was in the German team and Gregory was in the Cuban team. Neither were very successful at ET16. I may be out of date, as I have not fenced at the World senior championships for almost 13 years, Were there any other ex top fencers at ET16? My observation is that the ex top class fencers trained so much that when they finished their international career they seem to give up fencing competitively,
    We should get out of this suggestion that the top countries at senior level are the top fencers at veterans level, in my 18 years of fencing in the veterans I do not think have ever lost to a french fencer until ET16,
    I have however lost to several japanese fencers.

  11. #11
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    My observation is that the ex top class fencers trained so much that when they finished their international career they seem to give up fencing competitively,.
    Chris Howser said the same thing when I asked him if he recognised any top fencers from his senior international days. So in view of your experience and Chris's clearly I'm wrong and that's not such a big factor.

    I wonder then if it's having the fencers of the next level down. Not the big names but the also-rans, still with some international experience who perhaps didn't make a full career of it and wear out their bodies to the same degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    We should get out of this suggestion that the top countries at senior level are the top fencers at veterans level, in my 18 years of fencing in the veterans I do not think have ever lost to a french fencer until ET16,
    I have however lost to several japanese fencers.
    What do you think it is about the Japanese vets that gave them an edge in your case? Is it a style/tactical aspect. Fitness levels? Or just good all round?

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisHeaps View Post

    What do you think it is about the Japanese vets that gave them an edge in your case? Is it a style/tactical aspect. Fitness levels? Or just good all round?
    From what I understand the japanese do train regularily at their clubs. I dont know how often our fencers at ET16 train, but our 2 gold medal teams were carried by fencers who do train a great deal.
    My view is that fencing in a few Opens by itself will probably not make too much difference, but it will encourage more regular training over the whole season.

  13. #13
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    From what I understand the japanese do train regularily at their clubs. I dont know how often our fencers at ET16 train, but our 2 gold medal teams were carried by fencers who do train a great deal.
    My view is that fencing in a few Opens by itself will probably not make too much difference, but it will encourage more regular training over the whole season.
    It seems to me that they already do train and compete regularly. These are the current senior rankings of the men's vet teams across the three weapons.

    48, 54, 61, 62, 63, 65, 73, 70, 82, 89, 188, 365 and a couple I couldn't find.

    That's not bad considering they were all selected from the results of one competition.

  14. #14
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisHeaps View Post

    It seems to me that they already do train and compete regularly. These are the current senior rankings of the men's vet teams across the three weapons.

    48, 54, 61, 62, 63, 65, 73, 70, 82, 89, 188, 365 and a couple I couldn't find.

    That's not bad considering they were all selected from the results of one competition.
    Have to say that rankings have no correlation to how much people train..

    To be in the top 20 or so of the senior rankings probably yes (however I had seasons in the top 20 when I never really fenced at club, just coached), for lower down far less so, just turning up at a requisite number of competitions.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisHeaps View Post

    It seems to me that they already do train and compete regularly. These are the current senior rankings of the men's vet teams across the three weapons.

    48, 54, 61, 62, 63, 65, 73, 70, 82, 89, 188, 365 and a couple I couldn't find.

    That's not bad considering they were all selected from the results of one competition.
    Chris,
    Your figures really make my point, the ranking positions you show are pretty low.
    I agree with Chris Howser, there is probably little correlation between training and being low on ther senior ranking.
    Clearly when our fencers were so outclassed in ET16, they need to be capable of reaching considerably higher up the rankings, I would guess that when I first won the veterans world title I was in the top 12 of the senior rankings. So we need to encourage our fencers to improve. If the open competitions become part of our qualification scheme then fencers will have to take the opens seriously and improve their standings. This should encourage more training?
    Instead of the attitude that 'the youngsters move too fast to compete with', should be replaced with 'how can I get faster'!

  16. #16
    Mavis Thornton pinkelephant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lytham St Annes, Lancs
    Posts
    6,005

    Default

    Before I got too broken to fence any more, I used to prefer opens to Vets' events ( the fencing, that is, not the socialising!)
    Advocate extraordinaire to Beelzebub.

  17. #17
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    Instead of the attitude that 'the youngsters move too fast to compete with', should be replaced with 'how can I get faster'!
    Or more importantly, how can I fence 'smarter' than the youngsters.

    I actually quite like fencing the 'fast' youngsters, they fly onto my point quicker.

    It is the smarter younger fencers who use timing correctly that are the trickier ones..
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  18. #18
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    Chris,
    Your figures really make my point, the ranking positions you show are pretty low.
    Ha ha! There I was feeling quite pleased with my 63rd.

    You are clearly one of a kind Graham. In fact I just looked you up on Wikipedia:

    Graham Paul (born 15 May 1947) is a British fencer. He competed at the 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1984 Summer Olympics[1] and has been British Veterans Foil champion seven times.[2]

    You're just the kind of very accomplished fencer that I think some of the other countries may have more of in the younger categories. I'm going to do a little research to find out.

    If I'm being outclassed I want to at least satisfy myself that it's not by some third rate duffers

  19. #19
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Here we go, the Olympians are marked with the year they participated in an Olympic games. I lost to Magni & Zuikov but I actually beat Ferro. Self-esteem restored!


    Italy

    DI BELLA, Alessandro
    FERRO, Cosimo 1984
    MAGNI, Gabriele 2000
    MAGNI, Luca
    ROTA, Carlo


    Estonia

    KUKK, Ilmar
    MELNIKOV, Sergei
    ZUIKOV, Viktor 1992

  20. #20
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisHeaps View Post
    If I'm being outclassed I want to at least satisfy myself that it's not by some third rate duffers
    The likes of Italy, France, Germany, Estonia and most of the Eastern Euro teams are far from 3rd rate duffers.

    Even many of the ones who did not do World Champs/Olympics would still probably won most Opens if they fenced in the UK when at their prime.

    I was really impressed that our ME (Cat 1,2) team, which had 3 members of the team with little or no real International experience (even just at World Cup level) and really caused trouble to many of the other teams (even in the wide match scores, lots of fights were really close)..

    I am still greatly hacked off that I could not fence to my potential on the day... But that is life...
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •